If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I've been using this driver since 2009 - then pretty much switched everything I could to AMD, away from nVidia.
It's been great, I especially enjoyed not having to restart X or the kernel regularly and the full xrandr features.

As Intel graphics become interesting, I'm not sure what I will chose next - one of the criteria being triple head support.

I've been using this driver since 2009 - then pretty much switched everything I could to AMD, away from nVidia.
It's been great, I especially enjoyed not having to restart X or the kernel regularly and the full xrandr features.

As Intel graphics become interesting, I'm not sure what I will chose next - one of the criteria being triple head support.

The triple head support may be easier had than you think. Do you recall, a number of months ago,a virtual crtc patch article?

I will take this time to thank everyone who has made the free radeon drivers a reality. Do not let the trolls get to you - you have done and continue to do amazing work with very little support. Please try and keep it up.

I've been using this driver since 2009 - then pretty much switched everything I could to AMD, away from nVidia.
It's been great, I especially enjoyed not having to restart X or the kernel regularly and the full xrandr features.

As Intel graphics become interesting, I'm not sure what I will chose next - one of the criteria being triple head support.

I Agree fully with this, Although in my case, The decisions are mainly financial based. I stay away from Nvidia due to the added premium and the fact it's really hard to gauge card performance. I would look at Intel, but in the UK they where found to fail the basic anti-trust legislation. ( This is why i go with AMD even though these currently perform a little slower ).

Originally Posted by liam

The triple head support may be easier had than you think. Do you recall, a number of months ago,a virtual crtc patch article?

I have no problems with intel directly... Most of why I do not suggest this company is that the latest tech costs way too much.... Currently, The cheapest quad core intel chip that supports the Intel HD4000 series graphics is the Core i5-3570K, and the cost of this is around $230 USD. Just on an affordability stand point I am able to purchase an AMD the motherboard + ram + CPU that includes DX11 support for the cost of the Intel CPU only.

Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson

I will take this time to thank everyone who has made the free radeon drivers a reality. Do not let the trolls get to you - you have done and continue to do amazing work with very little support. Please try and keep it up.

I actually agree whole-heartedly with this... The Open Source support from AMD is awesome... Sure the absolute latest graphics support is not perfect, but the support is definitely appearing... Just take a look at a quick search of the Mesa tree and from April until Today, and i can easily see over 140 patches related to the Radeon Southern Islands alone.

The last major problems I had were with my former Radeon HD4770 about 3 years ago (desktop corruption etc.) Now we complain if the Radeon driver cannot compete with the binary driver, this is a huge step forward

With desktop tasks a dual intel core i3-3 usually outperforms an amd quad core. The speed/core ratio is much better for intel. Most games which do not use more than 2 theads should work fine as well. And then the cheapest solution for hd 4000 is i3-3225.

I would prefer it over amd quad core if you don't compile the whole day. If you mainly want 24000/1001 refresh support and opensource video decode (and basically even encode) support then hd 2500 is enough. there are even low power models with only 35w - if you want to build a very silent htpc.